This should be interesting. Mr. Qureshi (a PhD student in theology) is the author of the fascinating book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (kindle). He’s a convert from Ahmadiyya Islam to evangelical Christianity. He is bold, smart, and clear. Dr. Ally is an erudite and well-spoken Islamic apologist and an experienced debater.
In the press release for this live-streamed, April 8, 2015 debate, Mr. Qureshi says that
My goal is to dispel false beliefs about the Trinity and to replace them with truth… I’d like to explain the Trinity more deeply.
It will be interesting to see just what he presents “the” doctrine to be. I would be very surprised if he did not adopt the position that the catholic language has one main interpretation which all (really, most) Christians have always believed. Demonstrably not true, but something most trinitarians are compelled by their historical narrative to assume. And a typical approach for evangelical apologists is to camp out on oversimplified traditional language (Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Spirit is God, and there’s only one God, so…Trinity!) and refuse to clarify, asserting that clarification is impossible. That’s a negative mysterian move, which is heavily in tension with the “dance of three friends” kind of view (three-self or “social” theories). I’ll also be curious to see if he moves, as some Christians defending the Trinity vs. Islamic opponents have, towards a one-self (or modalist) theory. Or will he attempt to argue that from reason alone, we can know that a “unipersonal” god, a god who just is a certain self, is imperfect?
As to Dr. Ally, will he rely wholly on the Bible for his arguments? If he does, he might win this debate.
This doesn’t work:
- Debater 1: My book says P.
- Debater 2: Oh, yeah, my book says not-P.
- (Audience: OK, but which book should we believe?)
But this may work:
- My book, and even your book, says P. So, you should agree that P.
Christians have tried this on Muslims, arguing that even the Qur’an somehow implies a Trinity, or at least multiple “Persons”in God. I’ve read some such attempts, and honestly, they’re not convincing. You’re just not going to get anything like the Trinity by carefully reading the Qur’an. At best, you get God having multiple properties (so divine simplicity is false) – but that, arguably, is not much like the Trinity.
Conversely, some Islamic apologists have argued that the Bible implies that God is a single Person, a mighty self. They’re right about that. But traditionally, they make so many mistakes (e.g. merely asserting that the Trinity implies tritheism and the falsity of monotheism, or asserting the red herring that the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, or quoting the Quranic passages that seem to denounce a misunderstanding of the Trinity) that the Christian debater calls them out for misunderstanding “the” doctrine. And as a rhetorical move, the Christian will be well advised to change the subject from Trinity to Christology, because Islamic sources (7th c. and beyond) flatly contradict the main Christian sources (1st c.) on many important points. And in matters of history, generally, closer in space and time to the event in question is is better, and there’s yawning gap here when you compare the sources.
On the other hand, if Dr. Ally tries Ehrman-style attacks on the reliability of the New Testament, he’ll just annoy his Christian audience, though he may delight his fellows. But that’s not how you win.
I love debates. When done well, it is the truth that wins, and so also he wins who has ears to hear. Be sure to put on your ears!
I listened to this debate yesterday, and my poor wife had to hear my yelling at the Ipad for about 3 hours.
I appreciate Shabir Ally but I would love if he spent more time studying conservative Unitarians, I think he very often gives to much ground to trinitarian exegesis of texts.
Nabeel Qureshi gives very interesting arguments, but so many of them are very very slippery.
The Whole Pslams 110:1 thing, Adonai, Adoni, Our lord, My lord. Adonai is taken from the Hebrew yahweh, so the real text is Yahweh said to my lord. Adonai is a way of saying Yahwey, Adoni is not, it’s NEVER used that way … so no, Jehovah is not speaking to Jehovah, InFact this is one of the best arguments against the idea that Jesus is Yahweh.
Yes, sitting at the right hand means he rules, With God in a sense, but the one at the right hand is still subservient to him whome he is at the right hand of …. yes, he rules Gods Kingdom, subservient to God, why? Because God will make his enemies his footstool … This is someone ruling With authority FROM God, not God himself.
The son of man in Daniel 7, first of all we have to remember, the Connection to “service” is Aramaic (the text in Daniel) to Greek (the text in the NT) Compared to the Greek (septuigint) translated from the Hebrew (origional Hebrew bible), so the argument that Jesus as the “son of man” is rendered sacred service, and that means he is Yahweh, is extremely weak, and dependant on multiple layers of translation.
What is Clear is the rest of the context of the passage in Daniel 7. This “son of man” comes toward’s yahweh, is given Power and dominion from Yahweh, and People serve him BECAUSE Yahweh gives him dominion and Power.
Only God comes on the clouds based on Deuteronomy 33? Assume he means 33:26,27. Read the text, is that what the point of the text is? That only God rides the clouds? Does that make Elijah God too? No that isn’t what Deuteronomy 33 is saying, it’s saying God protects Israel and destroys the ancient Gods.
Jesus Calls himself the “son of man” had he wanted to say he was yahweh, he would have said so, had he wanted to say he was the person whome God will give Power and dominion to rule as king, he would have and DID say so.
These are among most rediculous attempts of defending the Trinity from the OT … it simply doesn’t work.
As far as Jews being Binitarians …. No, there were Jews that accepted other “gods” Divine beings, even extremely highly exaulted Divine beings, such as the “logos” of Philo, but that is not 2 Divine persons in one Divine being, that’s 2 Divine beings, one ultimate all powerful Divine being, and then another (or many) subservient to that 1 Divine being, who is InFact created by the all powerful.
This is the trick many trinitarians do, a fallacy of equivocation, there is 1 God, both the father, son and holy spirit are called god, thus there are 3 persons called god, but one god, thus the Trinity. Judaism teaches that Jehovah is the one true God in the sense that only he created everything and he is the ultimate one to be worshiped and given sacred service and it is he who ultimately is all powerful, there is one God in that sense. But of coarse there can be lesser created beings who can rightly be called “gods” but those usages of “gods” is a different sense of the way Jehovah is the only God …. It’s like saying there is only one “President” in America, but there can be “presidents” of Companies, universities, or other institutions within America (it’s not an exact analogy).
Some other bad arguments
“the son of man is lord of the sabbath” well Yeah, but why? just before it says “the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,” prior to that he talks about David breaking the Law to eat Food. Obviously here Jesus is using “son of man” not in the sense of the figure in Daniel, but just man in general, otherwise there is no real Connection between the 2 statements. But even if he is saying that he himself is the lord of the Sabbath, that doesn’t make him Yahweh, since of coarse God can give him that authority.
As far as the plural uses of “God” in the OT, look at the verbs and pronouns surrounding them, all singular, for a reason, it’s a single person. Elohim, is not a plurality of persons.
Keefa pointed out Qureshi’s abuse of the Hebrew text in implying Gratuitous mention means a plurality of People, that’s dead in the water of coarse.
I’m happy that Ally brought up 1 Corinthians 11 and 15, I haven’t heard him cite those before, but they are really Clear.
What Qureshi does is stack up a bunch of bad arguments, based on very faulty exegesis, and make it look like scripture overwhelmingly supports his position, but a bad argument based on faulty exegesis times a hundred doesn’t make a good argument.
The Whole Echad vrs Yachid thing is a miss use of the langage, Yachid means “only” Echad means “one” literally the number one, just like the English number one, it doesn’t mean a compound one, but just like the English Language it can be used that way.
had the Shema said Adonai Eluhienu Adonai Yachid, it would be the Lord Our God the Lord alone, or the lord only. That would just say the lord is the only God … i.e. compatible With trinitarianism, so no, a unitarian understanding of the Shema would NOT prefer Yachid to Echad.
Notice though, Jesus says (as Ally Points out) “he is one.” Not “we are one” not “it is one,” the oneness of God is a personal oneness.
Of coarse I could go on to criticize Qureshi’s assumption that Paul Calls Jesus God, I think Ally could have hit him much harder there.
Many good points, Roman. Thanks for the comment.
“[Ally] very often gives to much ground to trinitarian exegesis of texts”
Yes, because it suits his purpose. In the synoptics, it is pretty obvious that God is someone, and Jesus is someone else, and that Jesus is various way subordinate to God. Ally wants to say that christology quickly developed, so that in John, Jesus is “divine” or even God himself. I have argued that this is demonstrably mistaken. https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-episode-70-the-one-god-and-his-son-according-to-john/
Perhaps the most interesting thing to me about Mr. Qureshi’s strategy was that he staked it all on only Mark. He argues that even in the first gospel, and in Paul’s writings, which are earlier, Jesus “is divine.” This is becoming a common move, but I think it can be refuted. Evangelicals like Krueger and Qureshi are cherry-picking a few passages, and staking their case are arguable interpretations of those – while choosing to ignore what is plain and obvious in Mark’s book. https://trinities.org/blog/does-mark-teach-that-jesus-is-god/ https://trinities.org/blog/mark-jesus-is-gods-son-the-messiah/ But this book is, in a sense, a very humble one. It is not secretly encoded to teach by implication that Jesus is God. it wears its message right on its sleeve, in ALL CAPS.
A lot of trinitarians today I think, may be dealing with the popularity of people like Reza Aslan or Bart Erhman, so arguing for the early understanding of Jesus as God, rather than accepting the bible as scripture and arguing from the whole of scripture, this approach makes sense when arguing against a Muslim or an Atheist who don’t accept the bible as divinely inspired, and will only be willing to look at it through the eyes of critical scholarship.
What I find tends to be the most common type of argument is the following.
1: Only YHWH does X.
2. Jesus does X
3. Thus Jesus is YHWH
Or
1. YHWH is described as X
2. Jesus is described as X
3. Thus Jesus is YHWH
The problem is, these kind of parallels are all over the old testemant with other figures. Given that Jehovah often acts through intermediaries.
I like to use the Example of Moses, Jehovah is the only God, Moses is made God to Pharaoh, does that make Moses God? Of coarse not.
Jehovah delivered Israel out of Egypt, yet in Hebrews 3 they were taken out of Egypt through Moses … Is Moses Jehovah? Of coarse not.
It’s just a matter of understanding what the point being made is, and the context.
One argument I hear ALL the time, is the whole “you wil see me sitting at the right had of power.” and they respond “you heard the blasphemy.” So then the question is, what could have been blasphemous other than Jesus claiming to be God … aha, Jesus claimed to be God by quoting Daniel 7 and Psalm 110, what else could it be.
Well, for one Jesus could have used the divine name, sitting at the right hand of Yahweh, or Jehovah or however it was pronounced, which was considered blasphemy, where Jesus’ death would have been the punishment (according to rabbinic writings) as well as the chief priest ripping his garments. It could be the blatentness of Jesus proclaiming to be the messiah right in the face of the Chief priest and the rest of the Sanhedrin, which they might take as an act of disrespect, or perhaps they had already decided that he was getting the dealth penalty no matter what, I’m sure there are other possible explinations.
But if you take the trinitarian understanding you have a Huge problem, 1 you’d have to assert and then give evidence for the idea that Psalm 110 was understood by first century Jews as Jehovah talking to Jehovah and sitting at Jehovahs right hand untill Jehovah makes Jehovah’s enemies a footstool, you’d ALSO have to assert and then give evidence for the idea that the “son of man” figure was understood by first century Jews to be Jehovah, approaching Jehovah, who then gives to Jehovah glory and kingship and so on. So good luck showing that. But not ONLY that, if you assert that the first century Jews understood Psalms 110 and Daniel 7 to be Jehovah talking to and approaching Jehovah, AND you also want to assert that they were understood as messianic texts, you’d be forced into the position of asserting that the first century Jews, at least the Sanhedrin members, actually understood that the promised messiah would actually Jehovah in the flesh, now good look showing that.
In his public debate (Qureshi vs. Ally – Trinity vs. Tawhid)
Mr. Qureshi (a Trinitarian) cited a text in Gen 19:24 implying that there were two Yahweh’s. We read the text here in the ASV:
Genesis 19:24 Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven.
He thus uses this text to indicate some kind of plurality, which if misunderstood, would only be a binitarian stance. I would like to state that he is in grave error. Gratuitous mention is not common in English.
This is not the kind of usage we find in English, but the scrolls were not written in English, they were written in Biblical Hebrew. We would not say Pierre sent Jason a letter from Pierre. That would be needless repetition. However, in Hebrew use of repetition is a common thing especially when the biblical writer wished to make his point abundantly clear without possibility of ambiguity.
Let’s see what harm misinterpreting scripture causes: We read the text here in the NAS:
1 Kings 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders of the fathers’ households of the sons of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the city of David, which is Zion.
1. Solomon assembled them to King Solomon. How many Solomons do we have? One or Two
2. Yahweh(Jehovah) rained down brimstone from Yahweh(Jehovah), How many Yahweh’s do we have? One or Two
Hi Keefa,
Yes, I agree. It is simply making too much of grammatical oddity of Hebrew. This point was made by some of the Rabbis in ancient times, as I discuss in one of my Justin Martyr episodes. And if you just look at the notes in a modern study Bible, you will not find them making this argument! Some translations will, quite correctly, just eliminate the second occurrence of “YHWH” in the sentence. e.g. the second one here: http://biblehub.com/genesis/19-24.htm
Hi Dale – you are right, NLT, along with God’s Word translation do do that, however they are a small minority on the biblehub list; seems like translators seem to do their darndest to keep both Yahwehs on the whole.
Keefa,
An even easier way to show that Qureshi’s point about Genesis 19:24 is unnecessary is simply to look at Genesis 18:1-2, 13-16 where YHWH appears to Abraham as “three men.”
Throughout the context of this story, the writer doesn’t seem to have any hesitation to use YHWH to speak of the “three men” (Genesis 18:1, 13) or the “two angels” (Genesis 19:1) or when one of the “men” is left speaking with Abraham in the first person (Genesis 18:22, 26).
This shows that even YHWH (like ALHYM) could be associated with the angels who visited the Partriarchs and spoke on His behalf. This is probably why “us” was also used in Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 3:22 when referring to “God.” The ancient Hebrews understood that God ruled along with a multitude of other heavenly beings (1 Kings 22:19-21).
Is there to be a follow-up discussion on this debate?
Yes – possibly in a podcast or two. But I may do a podcast on Mr. Qureshi’s interesting book first.
Comments are closed.